FEAR or FAITH? FRIGHT or FLIGHT?Welcome Eagles to the New Crusade!Will thou help defend the Fortress of Faith?BOOKMARK us & check in DAILY for the latest Endtimes News!SPREAD WORD TO YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY!

"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Saturday, June 17, 2017

How Medieval Kings and Queens raised their children – an interview with Carolyn Harris

How Medieval Kings and Queens raised their children – an interview with Carolyn Harris

Carolyn Harris’ latest book Raising Royalty: 1000 Years of Royal Parenting
looks at the unique challenges of being parents to princes and
princesses. Covering the Middle Ages to modern times, Harris tells the
story of how kings and queens raised their children.

We interviewed the historian by email:Your book covers over a thousand years of history, going
from the medieval to the modern. Why did you want to give readers such a
wide-ranging view of the topic?
In 1973, Queen Elizabeth II visited Bath Abbey to celebrate the
1000th anniversary of King Edgar the Peaceable’s coronation in 973,
which included the first example of the coronation rite that remains in
use until the present day. The monarchy has survived for more than 1000
years (with a brief interregnum between 1649 and 1660) because it
changed with the times but it’s also an institution rooted in tradition
and I wanted to explore how those traditions developed since the
emergence of a recognizable royal family in the public eye.
My own doctoral research examined public perception of the queen consort as a wife and mother informed my 2nd book, Queenship and Revolution in Early Modern Europe: Henrietta Maria and Marie Antoinette.
I was fascinated by the change and continuity in both domestic and
political life during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and
wanted to explore these developments over longer period of time and
wider range of royal families in the British Isles and elsewhere in
Europe.One common belief about Kings and Queens is that they
were (and are) very aloof from their children, and that they showed
little care or concern for them. Do you think this is true among the
royal parents you wrote about?
Throughout my book, I examine the decisions of royal parents within
the context of their times. There are parenting decisions that would be
controversial today that were chosen with the best intentions in
previous centuries. In medieval times, entrusting babies to wet nurses
in country estates distant from the royal court was considered a
necessary safeguard for a child’s health even though this practice might
separate the child from his or her parents for months at a time.
Nineteenth and early twentieth century tours of the British Empire then
Commonwealth meant months of travel by sea, which was considered to be
gruelling for children. Royal children accompany their parents on
Commonwealth tours today because these tours are shorter and involve air
travel.
In terms of the personal feelings of royal parents toward their
children, there have been a variety of different kinds of relationships
in both medieval and modern times. There are royal parents who took a
close personal interest in the daily care of their children. When the
future King Edward I fell ill as an adolescent while visiting Beaulieu
Abbey, his mother, Henry III’s queen, Eleanor of Provence, ignored the
Abbey’s restrictions on female visitors to care for her son. William the
Conqueror’s queen Matilda of Flanders made clear that her first loyalty
was to her eldest son Robert when he was at war with his father.

Eleanor
of Aquitaine on the left with a companion, probably Isabella of
Angoulême, from a mural in the Chapel of St. Radegund, Chinon

More often, royal parents took an interest in their children’s health
and education but entrusted their daily care to others. Eleanor of
Aquitaine sent her younger children to be educated at Fontevraud Abbey
and did not become closely involved in their daily lives. Once her
children grew up, she wielded considerable political power on behalf,
helping raise a ransom for the release of her son King Richard I from
captivity and later providing her youngest son, King John, with vital
support for his accession to the throne. The future King Richard III
spent his adolescence away from his mother, learning military and
courtly skills in the household of his future father-in-law, the Earl of
Warwick.
Of course, there were also cases of active hostility between royal
children and their parents, which occasionally turned deadly. The first
half of the eighteenth century saw a number of particularly
dysfunctional royal families in power around the same time. In Britain,
the House of Hanover was notorious for its conflicts between fathers and
sons. In France, one of Louis XV’s daughters, Madame Louise, became a
nun with the expressed purpose of redeeming her father’s soul and
seeking forgiveness for his sins, which made a public statement that she
disapproved of his dissolute lifestyle. In Russia, Peter the Great
sentenced his son Alexei to death for treason and the heir died in
prison. The eighteenth century was a time when more sentimental ideas of
childhood were beginning to spread so the troubled royal households
seemed particularly out of step with changing ideas, contributing to the
lasting negative reputation attached to royal parenting.What do you think is the most striking difference between
how medieval royals and their modern counterparts in how they raised
their children?

Prince
William of Wales; Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and the Prince of
Cambridge leaving St. Mary’s hospital after the Prince’s birth – photo
by AshleyMott / Wikimedia Commons

The most striking difference between how medieval and modern royalty
raise their children is that boys and girls now receive the same
education. In September, Prince George, the son of William and Kate, the
Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will attend a co-educational school in
London that will likely also his educate his sister Charlotte. Prince
William and his younger brother, Prince Harry attended an all boys
school, Eton College but William and his female cousins, Princess
Beatrice and Princess Eugenie all attended university and earned
post-secondary degrees.
In contrast, medieval royal children were trained for different roles
in society depending on their gender and order of birth. In the
eleventh century, royal women were sometimes more literate than men as
the education of elder sons focused on military training. Matilda of
Flanders was better educated than her husband, William the Conqueror and
William’s contemporary, King Henry I of France marked his marriage
contract with an X while his queen, Anna of Kiev, signed her name and
title, “Anna Regina.” Younger sons were more likely to receive a
scholarly education as the church was considered an acceptable career
for junior members of the royal family (such as King Stephen’s younger
brother Henry, the Bishop of Winchester). King Henry I and King John
were both fourth sons who spent their early years receiving an
ecclesiastical education.
By the sixteenth century, the educations of elite men and women had
become more similar and all three of Henry VIII’s children, the future
monarchs Mary I, Elizabeth I and Edward VI received a classical
education. Humanist scholars of the time, however, debated whether
certain skills, such as rhetoric, were necessary for women, even those
in line to the throne. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the
education of elite women focused more on courtly accomplishments and
cultural patronage than languages, history and the classics. Both Queens
Mary II and Anne became patrons of musicians but did not receive an
classical education comparative to their predecessors Mary I and Anne.
These differences between the educations of male and female members of
the royal family have largely come to an end. In Sweden, Crown Princess
Victoria undertook military training in 2003, part of the traditional
education of male heirs to the throne.How do you think the pubic/political pressure of having offspring/heirs affected the way royal couples approached parenthood?
For centuries, royal couples faced tremendous pressure to have
children, especially male children, to ensure the political stability of
their kingdoms. The ideal royal family size was two sons who survived
to adulthood and a number of daughters to secure diplomatic alliances
through their marriages. The absence of sons could prompt a succession
crisis in medieval times while a large royal family – the thirteen
surviving children of King George III or the nine children of Queen
Victoria – prompted parliamentary debates about the cost of the royal
family in more modern times.

The Family of Henry VIII c.1545

The most famous examples of the pressure for royal parents to produce
sons are the six wives of King Henry VIII. For Henry, who was only the
second monarch from the Tudor dynasty, a legitimate son seemed essential
and the fact that his first and second wives, Catherine of Aragon and
Anne Boleyn each produced a single, surviving daughter seemed to
threaten the succession. In the late seventeenth century, Sarah
Churchill, the Duchess of Marlborough marveled at Queen Anne’s
determination to have a surviving child despite having “seventeen dead
ones.” There was public sympathy for Queen Anne’s grief at the loss of
her longest surviving son at the age of eleven but there were also
biting satirical cartoons depicting her knighting any doctor who
promised that she could still conceive.
In modern times, we still see examples of royal couples facing
tremendous public pressure to have children. In Japan, the fertility
struggles of Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako were
discussed in the press. The couple was under particular scrutiny because
the Japanese succession currently passes to male members of the
Imperial family alone. In Europe, where most monarchies now follow
absolute primogeniture, allowing the eldest child, male or female to
succeed, we still see numerous examples of families of three or four
children rather than one or two. Crown Prince Frederik and Crown
Princess Mary of Denmark have four children and King Willem-Alexander
and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands have three. The tradition of a
larger royal family and public scrutiny royal parenting continues to the
present day.

TRADCATKNIGHT VIDEOS!

TCK Youtube Channel

TRADCATKNIGHT- TOP 3 CATHOLIC YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Archbishop Lefebvre

“This Second Vatican Council Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.”

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Archbishop Lefebvre

“And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. ….Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion.”

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON TUMBLR!

TCK Facebook

FOLLOW TRADCATKNIGHT ON PINTEREST

Archbishop Lefebvre

That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church...

Fr. Hesse Summary on Vatican II

Vatican II = Heretical & Schismatic

Exposing Vatican II & New Mass, Fr. Villa

Archbishop Lefebvre

“Well, we are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this 'universal religion' as they call it today-this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this Liberal, Modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own Bible, the 'ecumenical Bible'-these things we do not accept."

Traditional Quotes & Prayers

The Real 3rd Secret of Fatima

Inlcudes Vatican II and the soon Apostate Church..."...because Fatima is a very apocalyptic message. It says that no matter what happens there are going to be terrible wars, there are going to be diseases, whole nations are going to be wiped out, there are going to be 3 days darkness, there are going to be epidemics that will wipe out whole nations overnight, parts of the earth will be washed away at sea and violent tornadoes and storms. It's not a nice message at all." Fr Malachi Martin

SSPX Marian Corps Donations

Marian Corps-Australasia

Fr. Chazal

Fr. Girouard

Or send a cheque made out to Fr. Patrick Girouard at : P.O.Box 1543, Aldergrove, BC, V4W 2V1, Canada.

St. Marcel Initiative

Or, if you prefer, in the U.S., make your contribution by telephone, toll free: 855-4-S. Marcel (855.476.2723), or internationally, by sending your donation directly to donations@stmarcelinitiative.com via PayPal.

TCK TESTIMONIALS

Eric Gajewski, Founder of DefeatModernism(formerly known as Defeat the Heresies)

Resistance Forum

True Traditionalist Forum

Pope XII: “Suicide Of Altering the Faith In Her Liturgy…..”

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past."A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, 'Where have they taken Him?'"

ALEXA RANK

Find The Rank Of Any Website

Current Crusaders Online Worldwide (RealTime)

St. Bernard:

Go forth confidently then, you knights, and repel the foes of the cross of Christ with a stalwart heart. Know that neither death nor life can separate you from the love of God which is in Jesus Christ, and in every peril repeat, "Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's." What a glory to return in victory from such a battle! How blessed to die there as a martyr! Rejoice, brave athlete, if you live and conquer in the Lord; but glory and exult even more if you die and join your Lord. Life indeed is a fruitful thing and victory is glorious, but a holy death is more important than either. If they are blessed who die in the Lord, how much more are they who die for the Lord!

How secure, I say, is life when death is anticipated without fear; or rather when it is desired with feeling and embraced with reverence! How holy and secure this knighthood and how entirely free of the double risk run by those men who fight not for Christ! Whenever you go forth, O worldly warrior, you must fear lest the bodily death of your foe should mean your own spiritual death, or lest perhaps your body and soul together should be slain by him.

Indeed, danger or victory for a Christian depends on the dispositions of his heart and not on the fortunes of war. If he fights for a good reason, the issue of his fight can never be evil; and likewise the results can never be considered good if the reason were evil and the intentions perverse. If you happen to be killed while you are seeking only to kill another, you die a murderer. If you succeed, and by your will to overcome and to conquer you perchance kill a man, you live a murderer. Now it will not do to be a murderer, living or dead, victorious or vanquished. What an unhappy victory--to have conquered a man while yielding to vice, and to indulge in an empty glory at his fall when wrath and pride have gotten the better of you!

But what of those who kill neither in the heat of revenge nor in the swelling of pride, but simply in order to save themselves? Even this sort of victory I would not call good, since bodily death is really a lesser evil than spiritual death. The soul need not die when the body does. No, it is the soul which sins that shall die.

The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port.

Once he finds himself in the thick of battle, this knight sets aside his previous gentleness, as if to say, "Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord; am I not disgusted with your enemies?" These men at once fall violently upon the foe, regarding them as so many sheep. No matter how outnumbered they are, they never regard these as fierce barbarians or as awe-inspiring hordes. Nor do they presume on their own strength, but trust in the Lord of armies to grant them the victory.

.

.

Saint Athanasius

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith?The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ..."You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. "Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."